Add a rally, forum, town hall, or other event to collect RSVPs, give attendees directions and more.
Add events from your existing Ning or MeetUp groups to share with other FreedomConnector activists.
Let other FreedomConnector activists join your cause to mobilize for freedom!
Their throats must be really sore.
Whoopi Goldberg and Rosie O’Donnell got into a cringe-worthy screaming match about racism during “The View” on Thursday. The ladies got into a heated discussion when O’Donnell, co-host Rosie Perez, and “Orange Is the New Black’s” Laverne Cox agreed that it’s racist when African-Americans are profiled in stores.
theviewThe brouhaha started with Nicole Wallace asking an innocent question “Do you think we live in a racist country?”
Goldberg argued that incidents like being followed around stores or someone asking you to park their car are based on general ignorance, not racism. “You need to know what real racism is,” she told the panel. “Racism is when someone comes up to you and says, ‘I hope you [expletive] die. That’s racism.”
O’Donnell took the conversation to another level — and octave. “I’m a gay American whose been called an [expletive],” O’Donnell said, acknowledging that she knows what racism is. “I have a black kid I raised Whoopi! I have a kid in my house!” Goldberg snapped, insisting the situations aren’t the same, to which O’Donnell replied: “You don’t need to be black to know what racism is!”
The entire segment which built up the heated conversation between all the women on the panel ended with Rosie and Whoopi’s viral confrontation.
Transcript via AOL.com
Nicole: “Do you all think we live in a racist country?”
Rosie: “Without a doubt!”
Whoopi: “Is it just ridiculousness or is it racism?!”
Rosie O: “It’s racist and it’s stupid!’
Rosie P: ‘It’s both!’
Rosie O: “It’s two things at once!
Whoopi: “I just see it as stupid!”
Then, the gloves were off. “Listen, you are a white lady telling me what is racist to you,” Whoopi began. Rosie quickly cut her off, and the following shouts ensued:
Rosie O: “I am a gay American who has been called a [bleeped word] and I know what hatred and homophobia looks like!”
Whoopi: “It’s not the same!”
Rosie: “I have a black kid I raised Whoopi! I have a kid in my house!”
Whoopi: “That is not the same!”
Rosie: “You don’t have to be black to know what racism is!”
Whoopi: “Yes you do!”
Rosie: “No you don’t!”
Whoopi: “Yes you do baby!”
Rosie: “No you do not!”
Read more: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/12/19/s...
Last Saturday, one of the largest open carry protests happened in front of the state capital building in Olympia, Washington, to protest the passing of I594. This outrageous piece of legislation was ostensibly written to enact a system for universal background checks.
While simple on paper, in practice this law makes it illegal for residents of Washington to lend their firearms to anyone, or to so much as hand their weapons over to a friend. For those of you who are gun owners, you’ll recognize this as something you’ve done numerous times without a second thought. It basically makes every gun owner a criminal.
The event was organized by activist Gavin Seim, who described the gathering by saying "This isn’t just a protest, we are here to openly violate the law".
The event went off without a hitch. Thousands came together on the front lawn of the capital building, armed with a myriad of weapons. They broke the law in full view of the police; some by passing their guns to fellow protesters, while others offered their firearms for sale.
What’s even more interesting, though not surprising, is the nearly complete lack of response from the mainstream media. So far only a few local news outlets have picked up the story while the rest of the dinosaur media decided to completely ignore one of the biggest open carry protests in recent history. There’s barely any footage to be found.
Not only did these folks come to the state capital armed, but they publicly violated the state’s unconstitutional law in front of the police, and nobody was arrested. And yet there hasn’t been a peep out of Fox or CNN.
I guess their corporate handlers learned their lesson after the extensive coverage of Bundy Ranch. They don’t want you to know that when enough people come together to break the law, that law becomes unenforceable. In practice, it becomes null and void. They don’t want you to know that you can stop these unconstitutional violations, and they certainly don’t want you to know that you are not alone. There are millions of people who don’t want to put up with this, and if they come together they can stop any gun grab
It might not get the news coverage it deserves with everything else going on at the moment, but the unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati against a federal gun law is a very big deal. The court held that the federal ban on gun ownership by people who have been committed to a mental institution is an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. Rulings of that caliber (if you’ll pardon the pun) don’t come down all that often.
It might not get the news coverage it deserves with everything else going on at the moment, but the unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati against a federal gun law is a very big deal. The court held that the federal ban on gun ownership by people who have been committed to a mental institution is an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. Rulings of that caliber (if you’ll pardon the pun) don’t come down all that often. The previous instance was the Supreme Court’s Heller ruling against Washington D.C.’s firearms ban in 2008, which those on both sides of the gun control debate would agree was a very big deal.
Today’s ruling was prompted by the efforts of 73-year-old Clifford Charles Tyler to purchase a gun. His application for a permit was denied because he spent one month in a mental institution, in 1986, due to emotional problems following his divorce. (According to the background material in the 6th Circuit Court decision, his ex-wife allegedly cleaned out his bank accounts and ran off with another man, leaving Tyler so despondent that he wept incessantly, couldn’t sleep, and had suicidal thoughts. He was committed for treatment after his fearful daughters called the police. He never did anything more violent than pound on his own head in despair.)
The law provides individuals with such troubles in their distant past with an opportunity to prove they have recovered from their disability, but unfortunately federal funding for programs to demonstrate relief was terminated over 20 years ago, and Tyler’s home state of Michigan never set up a program of its own. Tyler, and other Michigan residents, were therefore left with a theoretical concession to their Second Amendment rights that was impossible to take advantage of in practice. He passed screenings by both his physician and a psychologist, who agreed that his depressive episode decades previously had been an isolated incident, and he has since remarried, but none of that was good enough to satisfy the federal gun law.
That didn’t pass muster with Judge Danny Boggs, who drew a sharp distinction between the need to keep guns away from the mentally ill, and an unconstitutional burden placed upon rehabilitated individuals with brief periods of difficulty in their distant past. Somehow I suspect gun-control zealots will spectacularly fail to draw that distinction, and parody the 6th Circuit Court’s decision as “putting guns in the hands of madmen,” which they claim is an unwritten bullet point in the hidden agenda of the National Rifle Association. (Once again, pardon the pun.)
This attitude would seem difficult to square with the Left’s general enthusiasm for restoring the rights of criminals as quickly as possible – especially their voting rights – on the grounds that no one’s life should be permanently ruined for anything less than the most heinous offense. The gun-control movement will cast those principles aside in order to argue that public safety is unacceptably compromised by allowing a 73-year-old man who spent a month in an institution for emotional distress when he was 45 to buy a gun… something even the law as written would have permitted, if the government had given him a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate his rehabilitation.
Judge Boggs went pretty hard on the regulatory trap Tyler was caught in, comparing it to the bureaucratic nightmares satirized in the novel “Catch-22.” Boggs wrote that “under this scheme, whether Tyler may exercise his right to bear arms depends on whether his state of residence has chosen to accept the carrot of federal grant money and has implemented a relief program. His right thus would turn on whether his state has taken Congress’s inducement to cooperate with federal authorities in order to avoid losing anti-crime funding.” The cooperation in question involves states contributing information to the federal background-check system, in exchange for which grants would be issued to finance various state anti-crime programs. The fact that federal law allows previously-committed non-felons to petition for gun licenses clearly indicates that the government doesn’t think they’re dangerous enough to warrant permanent suspension of their Second Amendment rights, which means setting up a system that makes it effectively impossible for them to actually petition for the relief they are theoretically entitled to is constitutionally unacceptable.
The new decision quotes the Supreme Court’s Heller decision extensively – see, it was a very big deal! – comtrasting the restrictions that Tyler ran afoul of against various other constitutionally acceptable restrictions, including the one that forbids illegal aliens to possess firearms. “In light of Heller’s characterization of the right at issue as one of ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens’ and case law permitting Congress to distinguish among citizens, aliens, and illegal aliens, these holdings are not difficult,” writes Boggs. Oh, I don’t know about that, Your Honor. Give Emperor Obama some more time to wipe out the distinction between legal citizens and illegal aliens with his magic memorandums, and it might become very difficult indeed. How long will it be before one of Obama’s new above-the-law imported super-constituents becomes embroiled in a gun case?
Boggs also draws distinctions between the restriction struck down by his court and a variety of broadly similar gun restrictions by noting that the permissible ones are temporary. The Second Amendment can endure temporary restrictions, but the permanent loss of gun rights is a very serious business, which cannot be justified by vague concerns about increased risk. “It is certain that there is a non-zero chance that a previously institutionalized person will commit gun violence in the future,” writes Boggs, “but that is true of all classes of persons.” Furthermore, the nature of the bureaucratic trap Tyler found himself snared in amounted to disparate treatment under federal law for an entire class of people based on “whether they reside in a state that has chosen to participate in a joint federal-state administrative scheme.”
The overall thrust of the 6th Circuit’s decision is to affirm that the Second Amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, stakes out some very valuable individual real estate, where the government must fear to tread. Gun rights remain a contentious issue because the government cites the needs of public safety when it restricts the ownership of firearms, but Boggs challenges the government to provide compelling reasons for those infringements, especially when they are permanent. He finds it unsurprising that legal fallout from the Heller decision is still raining down, since that ruling was only handed down six years ago, but notes that “provisions of our Constitution do not lose their force even with the passage of decades.” Oooh, that’s not going to go over well with the “living Constitution” crowd – a group that overlaps rather heavily with gun-control zealots.
The Wall Street Journal captures some reactions that suggest the Tyler case could have ramifications for other gun laws:
Lucas McCarthy, Mr. Tyler’s lawyer, called the ruling “a forceful decision to protect Second Amendment rights,” and said he hoped it that it would have “a significant impact on the jurisprudence in the area of gun rights.”
[...] Adam Winkler, a Second Amendment expert and law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the ruling could give momentum to the gun-rights movement. “I wouldn’t be surprised to see legal challenges to other parts of the [federal gun] law now,” he said.
Mr. Winkler also said the ruling could prompt Republicans in Congress to move to set up a new “relief from disabilities” program that would allow people to prove they are fit to own guns.
The Justice Department has gone into sourpuss mode, offering no response when asked for comment by the Journal. That’s a pretty big clue that this decision was a defeat for the gun-control lobby, and it will probably spawn further defeats in the months to come.
We knew it - they knew it. Do we really need a report verifying what is already known or is it a waste of time?
The U.S. Army's report on Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl will show he deserted, but not that he is a traitor, two military analysts familiar with the case told Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor."
The report was completed in October, but has yet to be released to the public. Bergdahl walked away from his base in Afghanistan and was captured and held by the Taliban for five years.
He was released earlier this year in a controversial trade for five Taliban leaders being held at the U.S. military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, who said he played a role in one of three methods the United States considered in bringing Bergdahl back, told Fox's Bill O'Reilly on Thursday he has heard the final report mirrors the initial Naval Criminal Investigative Service report from 2009, just after Bergdahl was taken captive.
Col. David Hunt says he has heard the same thing, adding that the report likely will be released on Jan. 16. That would be about a week and a half after the new Republican Congress is sworn in, and would be on a Friday, when stories are less likely to get wide media coverage.
Conservatives have charged that the report's release was delayed to avoid hurting Democrats in the November primaries. President Barack Obama initially held a Rose Garden ceremony with Bergdahl's parents, but the good points quickly soured when some platoon mates said Bergdahl had deserted his post.
Hunt said the real issue will be whether Bergdahl will be found to be a traitor. He told O'Reilly that he has been told Bergdahl will not be charged as a traitor and will be given a less-than-honorable discharge.
He also will not be required to refund the $300,000 in back pay he received during his captivity.
Shaffer and Hunt both said they oppose that decision. Shaffer said Bergdahl did as much damage as Pvt. Bradley Manning, who leaked military secrets online.
And Bergdahl's damage was more direct, Shaffer said.
"People died looking for him," he said. "I feel he gave aid and comfort to the enemy, the Taliban, and then forced us to do some really stupid things to get [him] back."
This gets more ridiculous every year. These whiners need to be told to shut up and sit down.
Outrage over Nativity scenes, menorahs, images of Santa Claus, wreaths, and even candy canes have become just about as traditional in America this time of year as eggnog and tree lighting.
Across the nation, controversies and Christmas caution are already underway.
In Indiana, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) is seeking a court order for the permanent removal of a Nativity scene outside a local courthouse. Note: this is the fourth year in a row FFRF has tried to get it removed.
Michigan, however, may win the prize for diversity. It’s Capitol Building will not only have a Nativity scene, it will also have a display from the Satanic Temple. What exactly does this ‘display’ look like? It is a snake, wrapped around a tree and coming through a black cross. An open book hangs on the tree with the proclamation “The Greatest Gift is Knowledge” written above it.
What’s a little curious, though, is that while the Satanic Temple received permission to have its display out from Dec. 21-23, the Nativity scene must be taken down every night and put up each morning. Michigan lawmaker Rick Jones (R) has offered to head this nightly venture.
Oh, and as far as diversity goes, don’t forget about the "Festivus" pole, a six foot high stack of Pabst Blue Ribbon beer that is on display for the second year in Florida. I guess atheists just really need something to celebrate, and a Seinfeld joke about a “Festivus for the rest of us” was as good as any.
The good news is, that while these outlandish stories will likely make headlines every season, the majority of Americans aren’t offended when they see a baby Jesus display.
Only 20 percent believe there should be no religious displays on government property, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey. In fact, most people still consider the Christmas story to be an historical event:
About three-quarters of Americans believe that Jesus Christ was born to a virgin, that an angel of the Lord appeared to shepherds to announce the birth of Jesus, and that wise men, guided by a star, brought Jesus gold, frankincense and myrrh. And eight-in-ten U.S. adults believe the newborn baby Jesus was laid in a manger.
In total, 65% of U.S. adults believe that all of these aspects of the Christmas story – the virgin birth, the journey of the magi, the angel’s announcement to the shepherds and the manger story – reflect events that actually happened.
So call me traditional, but whenever a cashier, barista, or anyone working for a "tolerant," politically correct company sends me off with a “Happy Holiday!” I always respond with a bright, unapologetic: “Merry Christmas.” After all, that is what this federal holiday is called (for now at least).
With metronomic precision each year the national press corps begins running columns by “religion scholars” who wish you to know that Jesus Christ is a fictional character. Mind you, no newspaper of note in the world is brave enough to run a similar story about the Prophet Mohammed.
The latest comes from a “lecturer in religious studies” from Australia named Raphael Lataster. The Washington Post felt compelled to run this so the godless heathens in Washington, D.C. can continue on with no consequence.
According to Mr. Lataster, “There are no existing eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus. All we have are later descriptions of Jesus’ life events by non-eyewitnesses, most of whom are obviously biased.” These biased, non-eyewitness accounts include the writings of the Apostles Matthew, Peter, and John all three of whom were standing near the cross on which the magical mythological Jesus was nailed. They were just, one might suppose, looking in a different direction.
Then, of course, there are the books of James and Jude in the Bible, written by the brothers of Jesus. There are also the several letters written by Paul, who claims Jesus appeared in physical form to him after Jesus’s death. Lastly, there is Luke, a doctor, who interviewed many eyewitnesses including the imaginary Mary, mother of the imaginary Jesus.
Mr. Lataster must write out of history many people we know existed in order to write Jesus out of history. His dismissal of all scholars who disagree with him is pretty staggering. One must wonder if he is also prepared to write out of history Socrates who, like Jesus, never wrote anything himself. Others wrote about him after he died.
That the Washington Post and other news outlets feel compelled, each year, to point out that Jesus is a myth is telling in and of itself. They lack the bravery to do it about Islam’s top prophet because Christians will turn the other cheek whereas muslims would kill them. For any who disagree, just review the book stores bombed for carrying Salman Rushdie’s “Satanic Verses” or the riots against cartoonists who drew Muhammed.
The only really remarkable thing about the media effort to cast doubt on Jesus’s existence is that the press usually finds an Episcopalian priest or Jesuit scholar to do it. They first attack the virgin birth as an interpretation then end up at Jesus dying and his resurrection being only metaphor. Rarely do they go straight to the atheist religious scholar.
The common thread of all these columns, articles, and expositions are unbelievers writing to reassure other unbelievers at a time of year billions of people are celebrating either the miraculous burning of oil for eight days or a virgin giving birth to a child. The secular left can abide no miracles.
For the rest of us, it is worth reflecting on what did happen two thousand years ago. A virgin gave birth to a child fulfilling a prophesy made at the beginning of time in the fifteenth verse of the third chapter of the first book of the Bible. “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”
The prophet Isaiah, nearly 750 years before the birth of Jesus, said God told him, “the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” The Apostle Matthew, a friend of Jesus, wrote that Mary was a virgin and Jesus’s birth fulfilled Isaiah’s prophesy.
Non-Christian scholars and poseurs within the faith argue over Isaiah’s word choice, but the Christian’s scripture gives no choice. It is a fundamental belief of the faith that Christ was born of a virgin and rose again from the death. Take away either and we are left with just a man, not a God.
Several billion people around the world believe Jesus is real. We can also hold with equal certainty that a century from now several billion will still believe that and no one will remember the name of Raphael Lataster.
Check out the latest from the Liar-in-chief.
Here they are, in order of appearance:
Check out the latest from the Liar-in-chief.
Here they are, in order of appearance:
1. No mention of the Cuban missile crisis. “I was born in 1961 just over two years after Fidel Castro took power in Cuba….Over the next several decades, the relationship between our countries played out against the backdrop of the Cold War and America’s steadfast opposition to communism.” Cuba’s role in helping the Soviet Union project a direct threat to the U.S. mainland is carefully elided (though Obama, as he has done before, refers to his own birth as a kind of watershed.)
2. Suggesting that the president can establish a U.S. embassy on his own. “Going forward, the United States will reestablish an embassy in Havana and high ranking officials will visit Cuba.” An embassy needs to be funded by Congress, and needs an ambassador to be approved by the Senate. None of that is going to happen–nor should it, especially after the disastrous experiment in re-establishing an embassy in Syria, which Obama did in 2009, to no good effect whatsoever.
3. No mention of Cuba’s role in repressing democracy abroad. “Cuba has sent hundreds of healthcare workers to Africa to fight Ebola.” Yes, and Cuba has also sentexperts in repression to Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador. Cuban agents also allegedly beat and raped Venezuelan protestors earlier this year. For decades, Cuba assisted guerrilla armies abroad, fomenting bloody revolution in some countries and propping up communist regimes elsewhere. It continues to do so.
4. Suggesting that Cuba does not support terrorism. “At a time when we are focused on threats from al Qaeda to ISIL, a nation that meets our conditions and renounces the use of terrorism should not face this sanction.” Yet Cuba was caught, only last year, smuggling “missile equipment” to North Korea, the dictatorship that targeted America with a cyber-terror attack on the day Obama announced the new Cuba policy. Cuba continues to offer other kinds of support to terrorists.
5. False claim that the U.S. is to blame for lack of information in Cuba. “I believe in the free flow of information. Unfortunately, our sanctions on Cuba have denied Cubans access to technology that has empowered individuals around the globe.” This is perhaps the most offensive lie of all, since Gross was detained for trying to help Cubans access technology. The reason Cubans lack news and communication is because the regime censors them brutally, not because of the U.S. embargo.
Read more: Breitbart http://www.breitbart.com/national-securi...
THE TRUE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE BELIEVER
The Baptism of the Spirit, however, so brings the Holy
Spirit as a Person into the range of the believer's
consciousness, that for the time being, the other
Persons of the Trinity, in heaven, may be eclipsed.
The Holy Spirit becomes the centre and object of
thought and worship, and is given a place which He
Himself does not desire, and which it is not the purpose
of the Father in heaven, that He should have, or occupy.
"He shall not speak from Himself " (John 16: 13), said
the Lord before Calvary, as He told of His coming at
Pentecost. He should act as Teacher (John 14: 26), but
teaching the words of Another, not His own; He should
bear witness to Another, not to Himself (John 15: 26);
He should glorify Another, not Himself (John 16: 14);
He should only speak what was given Him to speak by
Another (John 16: 13); in brief, His entire work would
be to lead souls into union with the Son, and knowledge
of the Father in heaven whilst He Himself directed, and
worked in the background.
But the opening of the spiritual world, which takes place
through the filling of the Spirit; and the work of the Spirit,
which now occupies the attention of the believer, is just
the opportunity for the arch-deceiver to commence his wiles
under a new form. If the man is untaught in the Scriptural
statements of the work of the Triune God, to "obey the
Spirit" is now his supreme purpose; and to counterfeit the
guidance of the Spirit, and the Spirit Himself, is now the
deceiver's scheme; for he must somehow regain power
over this servant of God, so as to render him useless for
aggressive warfare against the forces of darkness, drive
him back into the world, or in some way side-track him
from active service for God.
War on the Saints by Jessie Penn-Lewis
Tomorrow: The Peril of the Time of the Baptism of the Spirit
Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer joined the “Special Report” panel Wednesday night and expressed disappointment in the Obama administration’s decision to open formal relations with Cuba.
First, Krauthammer noted that this action by the president is an about-face from where he stood in 2008. At that time, then-candidate Obama wanted to maintain the embargo on Cuba as a means of leverage so that the country would to move towards a government that promotes human rights.
SPECIAL: Make Barack Hussein Obama pay for his crimes against America. How much are you willing to take before you stand up and do something? This is your opportunity to be a true Patriot. Support the Tea Party Constitution Fund.
Krauthammer frustration was summed up in one devastating question: “Is there no tyrant or anti-American center in the world that Obama will not appease for nothing in return?”
Host Bret Baier also quoted long-time critic Sen Bob Menendez, D-N.J., on Obama’s decision to trade three Cuban spies held by the United States for an American aid worker held by Cuba as a poor move internationally.
“Trading Mr. Gross for three convicted criminals sets an extremely dangerous precedent,” he added. “It invites dictatorial and rogue regimes to use Americans serving overseas as bargaining chips. I fear that today’s actions will put at risk the thousands of Americans that work overseas to support civil society, advocate for access to information, provide humanitarian services, and promote democratic reforms.”
- See more at: http://www.teaparty.org/krauthammers-chi...
Your support keeps freedom alive!